God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.

I think Bourque was definitely a better even strength producer than Lidstrom (he also took more chances). But I don't think it's clear at all that he was better on the powerplay.

Devil...you know that those PP%'s are not how much of their team's PP time they played, it's the % of their teams PP goals that they were on the ice for.

Quote:

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.

I have a feeling you may want to re-evaluate some of your points based on this correction

Alright, new table. This is like before, except with two new columns. One takes the sum of the points, and divides by PP strength. The other takes the sum of the ES points + the PP points/PP strength. This is supposed to be a way of compensating for team strength. So in the first calculation we are making the assumption that the strength of the PP reflects on the strength of the team.

career:

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

Adj. Total

Adj PP Total

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Bobby Orr

1968

1979

596

49%

2.15

1.09

75

55

86

111

96%

1.52

63%

0.76

Paul Coffey

1981

2001

1409

43%

1.23

1.21

46

35

72

77

78%

1.13

28%

0.82

Ray Bourque

1980

2001

1612

42%

1.37

0.95

39

39

70

74

87%

1.11

58%

0.88

Denis Potvin

1974

1988

1060

43%

1.49

1.23

40

41

69

75

86%

1.18

53%

0.82

Brian Leetch

1988

2006

1205

45%

1.06

0.97

36

39

67

71

87%

1.12

50%

1.03

Phil Housley

1983

2003

1495

38%

1.06

0.97

35

33

67

68

84%

1.01

11%

0.95

Al MacInnis

1982

2004

1416

38%

1.41

1.12

32

42

63

68

86%

1.18

39%

0.93

Brad Park

1969

1985

1115

42%

1.4

1.2

36

32

59

64

80%

1.16

43%

0.84

Sergei Zubov

1993

2009

1068

42%

1.25

1.13

33

34

59

63

82%

1.14

33%

0.86

Larry Murphy

1981

2001

1615

39%

1.2

1.02

34

25

56

58

65%

1.05

32%

0.92

Scott Niedermayer

1992

2010

1263

39%

1.25

1.22

31

26

55

56

64%

1.04

40%

0.94

Nicklas Lidstrom

1992

2011

1494

40%

1.4

1.18

33

34

54

60

72%

1.25

52%

0.8

Borje Salming

1974

1990

1148

43%

1.14

0.82

31

22

54

53

62%

0.98

55%

1.09

Rob Blake

1990

2010

1270

37%

1.03

1.03

30

26

54

55

66%

1.04

50%

1

Chris Pronger

1994

2011

1154

39%

1.22

0.99

27

29

50

53

67%

1.12

54%

0.91

Scott Stevens

1983

2004

1635

42%

1.31

1.19

31

14

48

46

40%

0.94

56%

0.88

Larry Robinson

1973

1992

1384

43%

1.6

1.34

35

19

47

52

49%

1.14

45%

0.85

Chris Chelios

1984

2010

1651

39%

1.27

1.18

27

20

46

47

52%

1.02

57%

0.85

Guy Lapointe

1969

1984

884

42%

1.41

1.66

31

28

46

53

64%

1.29

52%

0.76

J.C. Tremblay

1968

1972

358

45%

1.37

1.33

32

22

41

49

69%

1.31

64%

0.85

Zdeno Chara

1998

2011

928

40%

1.16

1.04

24

17

39

40

42%

1.05

52%

0.95

Jacques Laperriere

1968

1973

435

47%

1.53

1.31

26

9

29

33

35%

1.22

73%

0.84

Serge Savard

1968

1983

1038

43%

1.44

1.52

25

9

26

32

24%

1.32

58%

0.82

Rod Langway

1979

1993

994

35%

1.29

1.2

20

3

23

23

10%

1.02

53%

0.83

Prime:

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

Adj. Total

Adj PP Total

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Bobby Orr

1969

1975

514

50%

2.21

1.1

80

56

86

115

96%

1.59

67%

0.74

Paul Coffey

1982

1987

458

45%

1.47

1.39

60

38

82

92

83%

1.19

34%

0.69

Ray Bourque

1982

1996

1081

43%

1.47

0.93

44

39

76

80

89%

1.09

58%

0.84

Phil Housley

1987

1996

686

42%

1.07

0.95

41

35

74

75

87%

1.03

16%

0.98

Rob Blake

1998

2002

362

43%

1.11

1.08

40

32

73

72

79%

0.99

54%

0.99

Brian Leetch

1989

1997

632

45%

1.2

1.06

40

41

69

75

91%

1.18

51%

0.95

Borje Salming

1976

1982

527

46%

1.26

0.83

41

32

68

71

81%

1.07

58%

1.04

Denis Potvin

1976

1984

623

44%

1.65

1.41

44

47

67

79

95%

1.36

56%

0.74

Brad Park

1970

1978

613

47%

1.53

1.26

46

35

66

74

84%

1.23

49%

0.82

Larry Murphy

1992

1995

292

45%

1.38

1.05

45

28

66

70

80%

1.11

45%

0.94

Al MacInnis

1989

2003

1043

41%

1.42

1.11

34

42

63

69

88%

1.2

43%

0.92

Scott Niedermayer

2004

2007

242

39%

1.27

1.22

37

33

62

66

79%

1.13

47%

0.9

Chris Chelios

1988

1998

803

44%

1.33

1.21

30

30

61

60

79%

0.99

61%

0.86

Nicklas Lidstrom

1998

2008

801

42%

1.42

1.18

36

38

58

66

78%

1.27

61%

0.78

Larry Robinson

1977

1986

731

48%

1.66

1.35

40

28

57

63

66%

1.2

58%

0.83

Chris Pronger

1998

2007

587

42%

1.43

1

32

36

57

62

72%

1.2

61%

0.82

Sergei Zubov

1998

2007

705

41%

1.25

1.16

29

35

56

60

84%

1.14

41%

0.85

Guy Lapointe

1973

1979

499

46%

1.67

1.88

40

34

56

66

75%

1.32

68%

0.74

Zdeno Chara

2003

2011

622

41%

1.38

1.13

30

25

52

54

60%

1.05

53%

0.89

Scott Stevens

1988

2003

1212

42%

1.34

1.2

31

14

48

46

38%

0.93

63%

0.89

J.C. Tremblay

1968

1972

358

45%

1.37

1.33

32

22

41

49

69%

1.31

64%

0.85

Serge Savard

1970

1979

651

45%

1.72

1.67

28

13

31

38

34%

1.33

65%

0.76

Jacques Laperriere

1968

1973

393

47%

1.56

1.31

26

9

28

33

36%

1.23

75%

0.83

Rod Langway

1981

1989

673

38%

1.35

1.21

22

4

26

26

14%

0.99

57%

0.85

Don't think that sorting by total adjustment is fair to Lidstrom, but there it is...

Sorted by adjusted PP totals (So only the powerplay numbers get divided by the team strength factor).

Career:

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

Adj. Total

Adj PP Total

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Bobby Orr

1968

1979

596

49%

2.15

1.09

75

55

86

111

96%

1.52

63%

0.76

Paul Coffey

1981

2001

1409

43%

1.23

1.21

46

35

72

77

78%

1.13

28%

0.82

Denis Potvin

1974

1988

1060

43%

1.49

1.23

40

41

69

75

86%

1.18

53%

0.82

Ray Bourque

1980

2001

1612

42%

1.37

0.95

39

39

70

74

87%

1.11

58%

0.88

Brian Leetch

1988

2006

1205

45%

1.06

0.97

36

39

67

71

87%

1.12

50%

1.03

Phil Housley

1983

2003

1495

38%

1.06

0.97

35

33

67

68

84%

1.01

11%

0.95

Al MacInnis

1982

2004

1416

38%

1.41

1.12

32

42

63

68

86%

1.18

39%

0.93

Brad Park

1969

1985

1115

42%

1.4

1.2

36

32

59

64

80%

1.16

43%

0.84

Sergei Zubov

1993

2009

1068

42%

1.25

1.13

33

34

59

63

82%

1.14

33%

0.86

Nicklas Lidstrom

1992

2011

1494

40%

1.4

1.18

33

34

54

60

72%

1.25

52%

0.8

Larry Murphy

1981

2001

1615

39%

1.2

1.02

34

25

56

58

65%

1.05

32%

0.92

Scott Niedermayer

1992

2010

1263

39%

1.25

1.22

31

26

55

56

64%

1.04

40%

0.94

Rob Blake

1990

2010

1270

37%

1.03

1.03

30

26

54

55

66%

1.04

50%

1

Borje Salming

1974

1990

1148

43%

1.14

0.82

31

22

54

53

62%

0.98

55%

1.09

Chris Pronger

1994

2011

1154

39%

1.22

0.99

27

29

50

53

67%

1.12

54%

0.91

Guy Lapointe

1969

1984

884

42%

1.41

1.66

31

28

46

53

64%

1.29

52%

0.76

Larry Robinson

1973

1992

1384

43%

1.6

1.34

35

19

47

52

49%

1.14

45%

0.85

J.C. Tremblay

1968

1972

358

45%

1.37

1.33

32

22

41

49

69%

1.31

64%

0.85

Chris Chelios

1984

2010

1651

39%

1.27

1.18

27

20

46

47

52%

1.02

57%

0.85

Scott Stevens

1983

2004

1635

42%

1.31

1.19

31

14

48

46

40%

0.94

56%

0.88

Zdeno Chara

1998

2011

928

40%

1.16

1.04

24

17

39

40

42%

1.05

52%

0.95

Jacques Laperriere

1968

1973

435

47%

1.53

1.31

26

9

29

33

35%

1.22

73%

0.84

Serge Savard

1968

1983

1038

43%

1.44

1.52

25

9

26

32

24%

1.32

58%

0.82

Rod Langway

1979

1993

994

35%

1.29

1.2

20

3

23

23

10%

1.02

53%

0.83

Prime:

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

Adj. Total

Adj PP Total

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Bobby Orr

1969

1975

514

50%

2.21

1.1

80

56

86

115

96%

1.59

67%

0.74

Paul Coffey

1982

1987

458

45%

1.47

1.39

60

38

82

92

83%

1.19

34%

0.69

Ray Bourque

1982

1996

1081

43%

1.47

0.93

44

39

76

80

89%

1.09

58%

0.84

Denis Potvin

1976

1984

623

44%

1.65

1.41

44

47

67

79

95%

1.36

56%

0.74

Phil Housley

1987

1996

686

42%

1.07

0.95

41

35

74

75

87%

1.03

16%

0.98

Brian Leetch

1989

1997

632

45%

1.2

1.06

40

41

69

75

91%

1.18

51%

0.95

Brad Park

1970

1978

613

47%

1.53

1.26

46

35

66

74

84%

1.23

49%

0.82

Rob Blake

1998

2002

362

43%

1.11

1.08

40

32

73

72

79%

0.99

54%

0.99

Borje Salming

1976

1982

527

46%

1.26

0.83

41

32

68

71

81%

1.07

58%

1.04

Larry Murphy

1992

1995

292

45%

1.38

1.05

45

28

66

70

80%

1.11

45%

0.94

Al MacInnis

1989

2003

1043

41%

1.42

1.11

34

42

63

69

88%

1.2

43%

0.92

Scott Niedermayer

2004

2007

242

39%

1.27

1.22

37

33

62

66

79%

1.13

47%

0.9

Nicklas Lidstrom

1998

2008

801

42%

1.42

1.18

36

38

58

66

78%

1.27

61%

0.78

Guy Lapointe

1973

1979

499

46%

1.67

1.88

40

34

56

66

75%

1.32

68%

0.74

Larry Robinson

1977

1986

731

48%

1.66

1.35

40

28

57

63

66%

1.2

58%

0.83

Chris Pronger

1998

2007

587

42%

1.43

1

32

36

57

62

72%

1.2

61%

0.82

Chris Chelios

1988

1998

803

44%

1.33

1.21

30

30

61

60

79%

0.99

61%

0.86

Sergei Zubov

1998

2007

705

41%

1.25

1.16

29

35

56

60

84%

1.14

41%

0.85

Zdeno Chara

2003

2011

622

41%

1.38

1.13

30

25

52

54

60%

1.05

53%

0.89

J.C. Tremblay

1968

1972

358

45%

1.37

1.33

32

22

41

49

69%

1.31

64%

0.85

Scott Stevens

1988

2003

1212

42%

1.34

1.2

31

14

48

46

38%

0.93

63%

0.89

Serge Savard

1970

1979

651

45%

1.72

1.67

28

13

31

38

34%

1.33

65%

0.76

Jacques Laperriere

1968

1973

393

47%

1.56

1.31

26

9

28

33

36%

1.23

75%

0.83

Rod Langway

1981

1989

673

38%

1.35

1.21

22

4

26

26

14%

0.99

57%

0.85

I think this is a better way of measuring the players' offensive worths.

Career wise, I think this is fair to Lidstrom. Doing this on a per-game basis hurts himi. For example, I do not think Zubov was as good as Lidstrom offensively. However, we also have to include Fetisov....so Lidstrom is around 10/11 post-expansion.

Prime, Lidstrom gets hurt, no question. But I disagree with the primes here. No problem with most of them, but Blake, Murphy, Niedermayer, and Lapointe have very small primes. This is not fair to Lidstrom.

Again, it is interesting to note in any case. Murphy's numbers hint at the idea that given equal teammates to Lidstrom, he could produce just as much. For a 4 year stretch, I would argue that Niedermayer was as good as Lidstrom ever was offensively. So too was Blake. But that is too short a stretch.

Here we go with more unit stats used to adjust measurements of individual performance.

Where is the number for how much of the PP strength each of these guys was responsible for? I'm not seeing that..

Hmm...well, PP% shows how much of their team's powerplay scoring they were in on. But that would hurt players like Lidstrom even more. He was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP than a player like Potvin.

Hmm...well, PP% shows how much of their team's powerplay scoring they were in on. But that would hurt players like Lidstrom even more. He was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP than a player like Potvin.

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.

On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.

Quote:

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.
It's like using Adjusted Stats at face value as an answer when it doesn't even include Era Tier scoring rate changes, Era PP rate changes or Era rule changes just to name a few.

It's usually better in cases like this when you just present the data and let people figure it out themselves.
You can't get players down to "one number" any where close to the level you can in Baseball. Hockey simply just doesn't have any where close to the same mass amount of data available needed to make such equations accurate enough to be considered creditable.

Like in Hockey, one could find stats on Faceoff wins, Faceoff wins by zone and on special teams but in baseball you would also have stats on whether said player was facing a left handed or right handed player, which linesman or referee was dropping the puck, how many Faceoffs he won cleanly, a % of which direction he won it in, what period it was in, the time of day and what # of shift he was one vs what shift the opposing player was on and may even include said players time of arrival at the rink that day lol

Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.

Quote:

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

The above should fix that.

Quote:

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

Salming was at 41 for his peak. Which adds some validity to the arguement that Salming was superior to Lidstrom offensively when both were at their best. Surely one can imagine someone who only saw Salming during his prime making this claim...

Looks like a lot of your numbers were off....

Quote:

Originally Posted by superroyain10

What is particularly interesting about this list is how players like Pronger and Salming fare despite not having played on the best teams vs. players like Lidstrom and Robinson, who almost always were on incredibly dominant teams.

Here are the numbers side by side (prime). You had a bunch of the numbers wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Check again. Your salming numbers were off...

So by "a lot" and "a bunch," you mean I had Salming's even strength number wrong (I accidentally doubled counted his PP number).

I used to think Clancy was a candidate for the top 10 offensive defensemen of all-time, but I found his numbers in the defenseman project less impressive than I expected. He was the 2nd best offensive defenseman of his generation, way ahead of 3rd place, but he was also way behind 1st place Shore. Shore is much farther ahead of Clancy than any of Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch/Potvin are ahead of Lidstrom. And I just don't think the evidence points to Shore being significantly better offensively than Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch/Potvin.

On the other hand, Clancy was very well-rounded when I had previously thought of him as offense-first.

Devil...you know that those PP%'s are not how much of their team's PP time they played, it's the % of their teams PP goals that they were on the ice for.

I have a feeling you may want to re-evaluate some of your points based on this correction

% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.

Maybe but a % of PP time can be extremely subjective on its own.
The more successful one is, the higher the % of PP time he will have as obviously, the majority of PP's end when a goal is scored right

Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.

It is already built into the divisor that you used.

Quote:

On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.

Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.

It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

I thought Habs fans were a lot more reasonable using the reverse argument - Andre Markov was arguably the best PP QB in the league for a spell because of how strong the PP was when he was healthy.

Right. I was trying to lead a horse to water but I guess you're even more sick of this than I am hahaha.. and I'm pretty sure both of us would pick Bourque, but someone has to stand up for Lidstrom too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71

Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.

That might be what your eye tells you but it isn't what the number tells you -- at least not without further research.

It is a percentage of a unit stat being used to describe an individual's play. ie. it MAY be pointing in the right direction but that is about it.

Quote:

I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat

Coffey and Orr get penalized for team.

Coffey, Orr and Bourque are all penalized for era.

Why is it somehow sacrilegious to apply the same standards to Lidstrom- who played on dominant, defensivley-sound teams?

Between 1994 and 2010 (Lidstrom's career, essentially), the Selke went to Wing forwards seven times.

His defensive prowess should be as suspect as any 80s era puck-rushing D's offense.

Lidstrom was the common factor across that entire time.

None of the Selke winners that you think call into question his defense were there the whole time.

Add to this Hollands post-lockout idea that goaltending was the position that had the easiest replacement value and I think you're barking up the wrong tree altogether.

I mean, you did see Nicklas Lidstrom play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.

The above should fix that.

The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

So now that it looks absurd lets massage it just right to still show what we want but not look absurd?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

I would agree. Sometimes the powerplay quarterback is a forward in the absence of a good puck moving defenseman too.

I know Mario Lemieux commented in one of the articles I found about Paul Coffey in the most recent all time draft that having Coffey on the team was a big difference in their powerplay for example. He claimed it made his job much easier.

In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

Alright, maybe this helps.

Assuming that throughout the eras, it has been 2.8 points per goal (1 goal and 1.8 assists per goal), what we have below are:

PPP/game
PP% contribution by the player
PP% adjusted for total scoring (/2.8)
Team PP strength
Player's contribution to the PP strength
PP strength of team if replaced by average player.

Missing the point. I tried to apply strength of the PP to strength of the team overall, which clearly was a bad idea. The results show that.

Quote:

Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.
It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.

That is true. But we are mostly comparing players who play the same role...#1 D-men getting top minutes and top PP time. Out of the guys we are talking about, only Housley doesn't really fit this category.

% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.

Looks like you might have a very good point. Bourque got a lot more PP time than Lidstrom from that span; over a minute less year-to-year. So it looks like Lidstrom contributing less to the PP can be at least partially attributed to him being out there less.

However, in terms of raw totals (PP/game), Lidstrom has to take a hit as well, as his team's PP was clearly more productive, even when he was off the ice.

Another interesting stat: If you the ratio of Lidstrom PP% to Bourque, and then take the ratio of Bourque's team strength to Lidstroms, they pretty much negate each other.

Missing the point. I tried to apply strength of the PP to strength of the team overall, which clearly was a bad idea. The results show that.

Right. That *was* the point.

Quote:

That is true. But we are mostly comparing players who play the same role...#1 D-men getting top minutes and top PP time. Out of the guys we are talking about, only Housley doesn't really fit this category.

At a high level, sure.

Bourque was a huge workhorse for his teams, particularly on the PP, though.

However:

Season

Name

Minutes

PP Points

97-98

Bourque

494

30

98-99

Bourque

543

39

99-00

Bourque

468

37

00-01

Bourque

402

33

Totals

1907

139

So over the four year period where we have stats (mind you this includes one very down year by Bourque and is the end of his career), Bourque registers a point on the powerplay roughly every 13.7 minutes of powerplay time.

Season

Name

Minutes

PP Points

97-98

Lidstrom

382

33

98-99

Lidstrom

432

29

99-00

Lidstrom

363

31

00-01

Lidstrom

446

43

Totals

1623

136

Meanwhile Lidstrom produces almost the same in almost 300 less PP minutes (5 full games of PP time) or a rate of a point every 11.93 minutes of PP time.

(Hopefully I copied this stuff right, I'm at work right now so I don't have the time)

Looks like you might have a very good point. Bourque got a lot more PP time than Lidstrom from that span; over a minute less year-to-year. So it looks like Lidstrom contributing less to the PP can be at least partially attributed to him being out there less.

However, in terms of raw totals (PP/game), Lidstrom has to take a hit as well, as his team's PP was clearly more productive, even when he was off the ice.

Explain to me again how Lidstrom's team helped his totals WHILE HE WAS ON THE BENCH.

Bourque was a huge workhorse for his teams, particularly on the PP, though.

However:

Season

Name

Minutes

PP Points

97-98

Bourque

494

30

98-99

Bourque

543

39

99-00

Bourque

468

37

00-01

Bourque

402

33

Totals

1907

139

So over the four year period where we have stats (mind you this includes one very down year by Bourque and is the end of his career), Bourque registers a point on the powerplay roughly every 13.7 minutes of powerplay time.

Season

Name

Minutes

PP Points

97-98

Lidstrom

382

33

98-99

Lidstrom

432

29

99-00

Lidstrom

363

31

00-01

Lidstrom

446

43

Totals

1623

136

Meanwhile Lidstrom produces almost the same in almost 300 less PP minutes (5 full games of PP time) or a rate of a point every 11.93 minutes of PP time.

(Hopefully I copied this stuff right, I'm at work right now so I don't have the time)

Need some context for those numbers yet though. Need to know total team PP minutes and the effectiveness of their PP's when they were not on the ice.

And I know you mentioned this but it should be more emphasized that it's a twilight of his career Bourque being compared to a middle of his prime Lidstrom.

Perhaps comparing Lidstrom's last 4 season to Bourque's last 4 would be better and would also eliminate most of the strength of team arguments against Lidstrom as well. Detroit in the last 3 seasons is obviously not on a level with the mid 90's-mid 2000's Detroit teams.